*nods to Nokraenom* I feel he's right, and this is even further proof that the effects of the demesne powers you're using are more subjective to the people that are using it.

Which is exactly why I made this thread in the first place!

Thing is, as a Geomancer I don't see the "flooding" the Aquamancers cast as being something that is beneficial. I see it as this torrential flood of water that that rips progress away from the land, just as the pictures above show. This is how a Geomancer sees it when his "Taint" is washed away... it is devastation.

And this is why I feel it is unfair to pin the "tainted" land under a negative connotation when everyone else gets the benefit of the doubt.

Check the mountains when a Aquamancer goes through. The herbs just slowly wilt... they don't grow well, they die off. Plants don't like being flooded, try overwatering some houseplants sometime.

I think the aquamancer demesne description is fine. It describes exactly what it is, and leaves any moral judgements up to the player.

I think the same is true for taint demesne descriptions, but whatever.

Yeah, but it's nothing like the same scale. It doesn't tear down forests, or change the very nature of the location.

Um, not when the words are universally negative in connotation buddy.

Went to dictionary.com for these.

v. tr.
1. (isn't applicable, check it yourself)
2. To impair steadily; deteriorate: “Doubt and mistrust could creep into our lives, corroding personal and professional relationships” (Philip Taubman).
v. intr.
To be eaten or worn away.

Yeah, corrosive his horrible -neutral-. I don't think so. On top of that, it "sickens" the land, and I don't care what culture you're in, or what translation it takes, "sicken" isn't a good thing in any case. Period.

@ Shiri: A Geomancer would not agree with you, because it rips Taint from the land... which again, is the whole point of this thread.

But thats what it -does-.

It's like saying we should change 'afflictions' to 'alterations' because we don't want the negative connotations of calling them 'diseases'.

The point isn't that the Taint has a negative effect on plant growth, because it does. The point is that the Aquamancer demesne is all nice and harmless -appearing-, when in actuality it does the same thing to the surrounding environment as the Taint does.

That's just overdoing it, particularly when my character isn't diseased and falling apart at the joints. Don't stretch the logic too far, because this is territory I have already passed a long time ago concerning demons and shortswords.

Thing is, no matter what city you're in, diseases are bad. And while some point to the poisonous effects of Taint, guess what? The Cobras in the deserts outside Dairuchi have poison too... I suppose that means they're evil and Celest/Seren should go on a some sort of Crusade.

And as Nokraenom said, the Flooding also has a negative effect when you put it on fields............. just like taint. So there.

Cobras don't poison the land itself. Taint does. This is all the description says. It doesn't say it poisons YOU at all.

I have to agree with Nok here in this statement. The ONLY Demesnse that is not harmful to the plants is the Serenwilde one...and I'm not even sure if that is true when it has been melded. I do know that water, taint, even the twisted thing Glomdoring puts up, those are all known to weaken any herbs in an area. Growth does counter this some. If they are melded, bam plants go byebye.

Maybe drowning would be an accurate word ... what's the statement.. "the land lies drowning under a pool of crystal clear water". *shrug* It's just as bad for herbs as taint is in its own way.

Herbs and the land are so different though. You're taking the stereotype from other IRE games that herbs = nature. There's more to it than that. When I flood, it's not a torrential blast that washes away the trees in the area entirely. When I taint (pretend I can do both ) it completely destroys it and turns it into a wasteland. It's not the earth doing it, because that would just bury it or crush it into a pulp or something. It's the taint.

I guess the question becomes whether they are Geomancers or Taintomancers.

Again, this is what -I- am saying, and I am saing that it isn't poisoning the land. We have seen no proof that the taint is actually destroying the land. We've acertained many times, OOC and even in game, particularly with the newest News postings, that the taint at the very least, does not destroy, and at the worst is mutates.

And if the land is getting sick, I'm not seeing it as a Geomancer... or as Quidgyboo put it... Taintmancer. See, there is no difference anymore buddy, Tainted Earth is an element in itself. A modern Geomancer would agree that the earth elemental plain isn't pure, but a Geomancer would turn around and say that it is imbued and made better.

Taint doesn't sicken... it changes and alters. Why can't you pull yourself out of your character and think about this on OOC -I am a human sitting in front of my PC-. If the lines were so clearly drawin in Lusternia there wouldn't be any reason to play as a Magnagoran would there? If the developers didn't think that the Magnagorans had an equally valid opinion then they wouldn't have set them up as a city they way they did.

At the least, all I'm saying is that the Geomancer taint should have a neutral description like -everyone elses-.

I hope someone is understanding what the issue is and what I'm saying.

I don't feel like justifying the Taint OOC because there are many arguments for it, and just as many against it. The reasoning behind both sides is equally valid and in the end you have a massive mess. I'm trying to avoid this, though people keep slipping into this mode (if you're not a Mag) that...

TAINT ESH TEH EB1L!!!1one11!!

Um... ?

That is not the issue here, and I hope people recognize that this isn't a one sided argument, and that I feel the description for Taint needs to be altered to be as -unbiased- as the descriptions are for the other demesnes.

Though I got a feeling this is goin' on...

(damn, these smileys rock)

Greetings. You've all argued your point very well, congrats.

My point: While I was a Seren, I was equally sickened by finding the plants wither under an Aquamancer's pretty shallow water as under a Geomancer's sickening taint. To my character it would both have looked upon as something very negative, because that's his biased view. Which was what the thread was originally about (I think), changing descriptions of demesnes to something that fits the view of your character. It's not about any other effect the taint has, including what it does to people, structures, your favourite supernal or housewife. Geomancers like taint demesnes and don't consider them something that sickens the land, but really dislike aqua demesnes. Vice versa for Aquamancers. Hartstonians tend to dislike both, or should in the end.

You can't compare the water used by aqua demesnes to RL floods, simply because there's no equal reference point to the taint, and because it's really a different thing anyway.

From an IC perspective, see above.

From an OOC perspective, yes, taint turning the environment into wasteland is worse than a shallow layer of water that covers the otherwise unmodified ground, even though both is rather unhealthy for the plants in the long run.

I think that's really pretty much all that needs to be said about that topic, no?
It's about whether the description line of a demesne should reflect your character's point of view or your ooc point of view, and the only point left to argue about is whether it should be the ooc or ic way. I think having it reflect the IC perspective would add a nice edge to things, feel free to disagree.

Just stop the whole argument about whether fake taint is better/worse/equal/whatever than fake forest or fake water. (Also known as demesnes)

I am thinking about this oocly. If you, the person who sits at the keyboard, were thrown into the world of Lusternia, do you think you would stand in a tainted demesne and say, "Gee, you know, this isn't that bad. Sure, there are clouds of filth flying around, everythings dead or mutated... but thats no different than standing in inch deep water. Undeath? Bring it on!"

No, you wouldn't. You would find things that are taint-warped 'sickening', and if you watched a geomancer cast his magic over the land you would certainly have the impression of the landscape being 'corrupting' by whatever it was.

Magnagora -does- have an equally valid opinion. They are part of the taint, hence they find it integral to their survival. They find that it is more powerful and more important than that which is untainted. They find tainted things beautiful, and themselves most of all (hence the antagonism towards elfen ). This viewpoint is not negated by the fact the taint is... surprisingly, tainting things.

Why would you play as a Nihilist when so many of its skills are written in an obviously negative way, including 'torture', 'sacrifice', 'pollution', and so on? Because you want to play on the 'dark' side, because you want to take on a complex viewpoint that justifies uncommon actions, because you enjoy the challenge of a mindset that is unlike your own.

It doesn't need to be entirely rewritten so every side is automatically the side of 'Light', 'goodness', and the american way.

You guys are just really blowing this WAY out of proportion and need to get a life. thanks.

I wasn't arguing that it is worse per se, I'm arguing that when it comes to demesnes an Aquamancer sees taint as corrosive and sickening. When it comes to a Geomancer he sees it as destructive, stagnant water.

Both sides are equally right, and that's what I'm telling you Elryn. I'm saying that, OOCly, both sides see their elemental specialties as being equally beneficial, and that the other side is destructive. (there are things I disagree with though, such as this pointless elven/merian racist garbage. My character has no reason to hate them aside from "X announces that you will hate them, because he said so." My Mag refuses to be a racist because he sees no reason to hate them. In his opinion, the more the merrier).

Nonetheless, David, you got -exactly- what I was going for, so I put it up in a quote. You hit the nail on the head.

I would just like to mention that when a geomancer Melds a forest, the trees still exist, they don't go away, however the ground gets all rocky and different looking.

I.e, Can you even use Spiritbond Rock in a Geomancer Demense, I don't think you can. however you can in tainted mountainside.

You mean IC (in character), not OOC (out of character). ICly, yes, obviously both see their own speciality as better and wonderful.

The point is, descriptions cannot be custom written for every possible viewpoint in the game. What I am trying to say is that OOC descriptions make it easier for the players to form their own viewpoints and understand what is going on without making for completely nonsensical interactions. ("This water is fetid!" "No, its actually pure elemental water" "But look around, its dirty and fetid!" "Um, its crystal clear... unless you say the sky is dirty and dank?") Rather, isn't it better to have the -players- interpret the world themselves? ("This 'pure' water is disgusting, it doesn't have a trace of power in it." "Keep your filthy taintmagic away from the elemental waters!")

That's right, custom descriptions for every organization is not the way to go, because not everyone, even from the same city, views things the same way.

That's why I think they should be more neutral (at least geomancers one isn't) and not have any emotional meaning, just state the fact. 'sickens the land' makes no room for interpretations.